By Esther Claudette Gittens

In New York City—a metropolis often celebrated for its multiculturalism and diversity—the divide between liberal ideology and lived behavior has become increasingly apparent. A candid self-reflection framed as the question “Is something wrong with me?” serves as a poignant starting point for analyzing the contradiction many self-identified white liberals face: the tension between championing racial justice rhetorically while avoiding any real disruption of their own socioeconomic comfort or racial homogeneity.

This phenomenon is neither new nor unique to New York City, but it is perhaps magnified here due to the city’s sharp racial and economic contrasts, dense population, and long history of racialized housing policies. The dilemma stated—voicing support for Black and Brown communities while refusing to reside within them—exposes deeper structural, psychological, and moral inconsistencies embedded in white liberal identity.

1. Ideological Commitment vs. Residential Choices

White liberalism often prides itself on progressive values: fighting systemic racism, advocating for equitable public policies, and expressing solidarity with marginalized communities. However, these values frequently meet their limit at the threshold of personal sacrifice—particularly when it comes to where one chooses to live.

Despite vocal support for racial equity, many white liberals opt for predominantly white neighborhoods. They cite reasons such as “good schools,” “safe streets,” and “property value stability.” However, these are often coded language for “less Black and Brown neighbors,” “low crime,” and “economic homogeneity.” This choice, conscious or not, upholds residential segregation—a linchpin of systemic inequality.

So, is there something “wrong” with this behavior? From a legal standpoint, certainly not. But from an ethical, sociopolitical, and communal perspective, it reveals a schism between stated values and actual practices.

1. The History and Impact of Segregation

To understand the gravity of this contradiction, one must examine the historical context. Racial residential segregation in New York did not occur by accident. It was engineered through redlining, blockbusting, restrictive covenants, urban renewal, and predatory lending—mechanisms that kept communities of color isolated from the resources of white neighborhoods.

Today, this history manifests in the fact that public schools, healthcare access, environmental safety, and job opportunities remain starkly unequal across racial lines. By refusing to live in Black or Brown communities—especially those in need of political capital and investment—white liberals contribute to the perpetuation of this legacy, even as they denounce it in principle.

III. The “White Savior” Complex and Performative Allyship

The phrase “I will save Black and Brown people” reflects another underlying tension: the paternalistic tone of white liberalism. Often framed as altruism, this behavior embodies the “white savior” complex—the belief that oppressed people require saving, and that white individuals are uniquely suited to lead that rescue.

This dynamic is problematic for several reasons:

1. It centers whiteness as the agent of change rather than empowering communities to self-determine their futures.
2. It reinforces dependency rather than building equitable partnerships.
3. It allows performative allyship to replace actual structural sacrifice.

When white liberals march in protests, donate to causes, or post #BlackLivesMatter hashtags—but continue to withdraw from integrated living—they inadvertently reinforce the very power imbalances they claim to resist.

1. The Comfort of Whiteness

Residential preferences are often cloaked in the language of pragmatism. “I want my kids to have the best schools,” or “I don’t feel safe in certain areas.” However, these statements must be interrogated. Are these schools “better” because of higher funding and test scores, or because they lack a high percentage of Black and Latino students? Is safety an objective measure, or is it influenced by racialized perceptions of crime?

In many cases, white liberals are not consciously racist, but they are unconsciously committed to the comfort and privileges of whiteness. That includes living in neighborhoods where they are not confronted with poverty, difference, or discomfort. The preference for racial homogeneity is not politically neutral—it is a form of silent segregation that undermines the multiracial democracy they often champion.

1. Housing Justice as Racial Justice

If housing is one of the primary determinants of opportunity in American life, then the decision of where to live is inherently political. Advocating for Black and Brown people means more than supporting police reform or criminal justice legislation. It means fighting for integrated housing, equitable zoning laws, affordable rents, and public investment in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods.

It also means putting oneself in proximity with the communities one claims to support—not to lead, not to save, but to live alongside as a neighbor, a stakeholder, and a partner in shared civic life.

1. Is Something Wrong With Me?

This self-interrogation is crucial—and commendable. It acknowledges a cognitive dissonance that many white liberals experience but seldom name. The mere fact that this question is being asked suggests a willingness to move beyond denial and toward accountability.

The answer is not necessarily that something is “wrong” with you as an individual. Rather, something is wrong with the cultural norms, economic incentives, and structural systems that allow you to claim racial progressivism without ever being challenged to relinquish privilege. Recognizing that dissonance is the first step. Acting to correct it—by moving past performance into solidarity—is the next.

VII. Moving from Ally to Accomplice

Being an “ally” means supporting a cause. Being an “accomplice” means leveraging your own power and position to actively dismantle oppression. That may involve:

• Choosing diverse schools and neighborhoods even if it means stepping outside your comfort zone.
• Advocating for policies that make your neighborhood more affordable and inclusive, even if it impacts your property value.
• Supporting local Black- and Brown-led organizations not just through donations, but through shared community engagement.

It is only through such concrete steps that one can reconcile the identity of a white liberal with the actual work of racial justice.

Conclusion

New York City remains a mirror of the nation’s racial contradictions. The liberalism of the city’s white residents cannot be measured by their protest signs or political donations alone. It must also be measured by their proximity to those they claim to support, their willingness to share resources, and their readiness to forgo exclusive comfort for collective liberation.

So, to the question “Is something wrong with me?”—the answer is not condemnation but invitation: the invitation to grow, to learn, and most importantly, to act in alignment with your stated values. Because in the fight for equity, intention is not enough. Proximity, partnership, and personal discomfort are often the true tests of solidarity.